The Laws Pertaining to Leprosy

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 13:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, (2) “When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling, a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his body like a plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests."

After it was said in chapter 12 that the Lord spoke only to Moses, chapter 13 began by telling us the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, surely because the following laws concerned the priests.  Whenever a man began to show signs of leprosy, those being a swelling, scale, or a bright spot, he was to be brought to a priest, either Aaron or one of Aaron's sons.

(3) "And the priest shall examine the plague in the skin of the flesh, and if the hair in the plague has turned white, and the plague in sight is deeper than the skin of his body, it is a plague of leprosy; and the priest shall examine him, and pronounce him unclean."

The priest was to closely examine the signs of suspected leprosy.  If the hair in the suspicious area had turned white when it was otherwise usually another color, and if the area was more than merely skin deep, then it was determined to be leprosy, and the priest was to declare the person unclean.

(4) "If the bright spot is white on the skin of his flesh, and does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, then the priest shall isolate the one who has the plague seven days. (5) And the priest shall examine him on the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague appears to be as it was, and the plague has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall isolate him another seven days."

If, upon examination, there was a bright white spot in the skin, but it was not more than skin deep, and the hair within it had not turned white, then the person was just to be isolated for seven days.  The priest would then re-examine on the seventh day, and if the area was just as it was and had not spread, he would isolate the person another seven days.

(6) "And the priest shall examine him again on the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague is somewhat dark, and the plague has not spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scab, and he shall wash his clothes and be clean."

The priest would again re-examine the person with the plague, and if the area was somewhat dark, meaning it was not as bright white as before, and if it had not spread, then the priest was sure it was not leprosy, and would pronounce the person clean.  The area was declared just a scab, and the person was to wash his clothes and be considered clean.

(7)  “But if the scab spread much in the skin, after he has been seen by the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen by the priest again."

However, if the scabbed area spread in the person's skin after he had been pronounced clean by the priest, he would have to be examined by the priest yet again.

(8) “And if the priest sees that, behold, the scab has spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is leprosy."

If the priest re-examined the person and saw that indeed the scabbed area had spread in the skin, then he would pronounce the person unclean as it was to be considered leprosy.

(9) “When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought to the priest. (10) And the priest shall examine him, and, behold, if the swelling on the skin is white, and it has turned the hair white, and there is a spot of raw flesh in the swelling, (11) It is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not isolate him, for he is unclean."

In verse 2, we had the case of a person with a suspicious sore, but in this case, it was widely known and certain that the person indeed had leprosy, and he was to be brought to the priest.  The priest would examine him, and if the area was white, had turned the hair within it white, and there was a spot of raw flesh in the swelled area, it was considered an "old" leprosy, a chronic long-standing leprosy.  There was no need in this case to isolate the person, for it was certain that he had leprosy and he was to be considered and pronounced unclean.

(12) “And if leprosy breaks out all over the skin, and the leprosy covers all the skin of the one who has the plague, from his head to his foot, wherever the priest looks, (13) Then the priest shall consider, and, behold, if the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean who has the plague; it has all turned white; he is clean."

Interestingly, if the leprosy had broken out all over the skin and completely covered the person's skin from head to toe, the priest was to examine and confirm that this was the case, and the person would actually be pronounced clean.  When all the person's skin had turned white, he was considered clean.  Why would it be that the partial leper was pronounced unclean, and the person totally covered with the disease was pronounced clean?  Surely it must have had to do with the particular stage of the disease.  In the case of the partial leprosy, there were open sores, and the disease was probably highly contagious during that time.  Once the skin was an allover white, the disease had probably run its course, and was no longer contagious; and there weren't any open sores, just an allover white skin.

(14) “But when raw flesh appears on him, he shall be unclean. (15) And the priest shall examine the raw flesh and pronounce him to be unclean, for the raw flesh is unclean; it is leprosy."

Indeed, scripture went on to say that if there was any raw flesh or open sores, the person was to be considered unclean.  The priest was to examine and confirm that there was raw flesh and pronounce him unclean, because the raw flesh was unclean and considered leprosy.

(16) “Or if the raw flesh changes and turns white again, he shall come to the priest. (17) And the priest shall examine him, and, behold, if the plague has turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean who has the plague; he is clean."

Once again, if the raw flesh became allover white, the person was to go back to the priest, and once he was examined and found to be indeed just white with no open sores, the priest would pronounce him clean.

(18) "The flesh in which there was a boil, and it is healed, (19) And in the place of the boil there is a white swelling or a bright spot, reddish-white, and it be shown to the priest, (20) And if, when the priest sees it, behold, it appears deeper than the skin, and its hair has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a plague of leprosy broken out of the boil."

If a person had had a boil and it was now healed, but there came a white swelling or bright reddish white spot in its place, that was to be shown to the priest.  The priest was to examine it and if it appeared more than skin deep and the hair in it had turned white, he would pronounce the person who had had the boil as unclean, as it appeared leprosy had broken out of the boil.  I believe the implication here is that leprosy, being contagious, was more apt to spread by contact with diseased flesh, than with flesh that was whole and sound.  Therefore, someone who had had a boil might be one to watch for signs of leprosy following the healing of the boil.

(21) “But if the priest examines it, and, behold, there are no white hairs in it, and it is not deeper than the skin, but is somewhat dark, then the priest shall isolate him seven days; (22) And if it spreads much in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a plague."

However, if the priest examined the suspicious area where a person had had a boil, and it had no white hair in it and it was somewhat dark, indicating healing from the white area, the priest was just to isolate the person for seven days.  If the area in the skin spread, then the priest would pronounce the person unclean as it was a plague.

(23) “But if the bright spot stays in one place, and does not spread, it is a burning boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean."

If after the seven days of isolation, the priest determined that the suspicious spot had stayed in one place and had not spread, then the spot was declared a "burning boil", or "burning of the boil", which is believed to have meant the scabbing or scarring of the boil.  In this case, the priest would pronounce the person clean.

(24) “Or if there is any flesh, in the skin of which there is a hot burning, and the raw flesh of the burn has a white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white; (25) Then the priest shall examine it, and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot has turned white, and it appears deeper than the skin, it is leprosy broken out of the burning; therefore the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is the plague of leprosy."

The words translated as "hot burning", "esh mikvah", appear to mean literally "burning of fire", so this is understood to mean any flesh that was burned.  If the flesh of a burn had a white or reddish-white bright spot, the priest was to examine it, and if the hair was white within it and it was more than skin deep, it would appear that leprosy had broken out in the area of the burned wound, and the priest would pronounce the victim unclean with a plague of leprosy.

(26) “But if the priest examines it, and, behold, there is no white hair in the bright spot, and it is not deeper than the skin, but is somewhat dark, then the priest shall isolate him seven days. (27) And the priest shall examine him the seventh day; if it has spread much in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is the plague of leprosy."

However, if the priest examined the bright flesh of a burn wound, and there was no white hair, it had somewhat darkened, and was not more than skin deep, then the priest would just isolate the person for seven days.  If after that time, the area had spread, then the priest would pronounce the person unclean as it appeared to be a plague of leprosy.

(28) “But if the bright spot stays in one place, and has not spread in the skin, but is somewhat dark, it is a swelling from the burn; and the priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is an inflammation of the burning."

If after seven days, the priest determined that the bright spot had stayed in one place and had not spread, and that it was somewhat darker and not more than skin deep, he would pronounce the person clean, as it was just inflammation from the burn.

(29) “If a man or woman has a plague on the head or the beard, (30) Then the priest shall examine the plague, and, behold, if it appears deeper than the skin, and there is in it thin yellow hair, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a dry scall, a leprosy on the head or beard."

If a man or woman had a sore under the hair on the head or under a beard, then the priest was to examine it, and if it appeared deeper than skin deep and the hair within it was thin and yellow, then the person was to be pronounced unclean, for it was declared a dry scall, a leprosy on the head or beard.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, wrote that as "scall" was "the name for another disease not allied to the leprosy, it would have been better to retain the original word netheq."  Indeed, "scall" has come to mean merely dandruff, but was formerly a term for any of various diseases of the scalp characterized by itching and scab formation.  In this instance, a "dry scall" was considered a type of leprosy of the head or beard if it had the characteristics given in verse 30.

(31) "And if the priest examines the plague of the scall, and, behold, it does not appear deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, then the priest shall isolate the one who has the plague of the scall seven days."

However, if the priest examined the plague on the head or in the beard, and it was not more than skin deep, but had no black hairs in it, then the person was just to be isolated for seven days.  I believe the sense is that if there were black hairs, then there would be no question that the person was clean.  However, if there were no black or yellow hairs, either one, it would be questionable, and the person was to be isolated for seven days and then re-examined.

(32) “And on the seventh day the priest shall examine the plague, and, behold, if the scall has not spread, and there is no yellow hair in it, and the scall does not appear deeper than the skin, (33) He shall be shaved, but the scall he shall not shave; and the priest shall isolate the one who has the scall seven days more."

If after seven days the scall had not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it, and it did not appear to be more than skin deep, then the person was to be shaved.  However, the scall itself was not to be shaved, either to prevent irritation, or perhaps to better observe the hair growing out of it.  The person was to then be isolated for seven more days.

(34) "And on the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall, and, behold, if the scall has not spread in the skin, nor appears deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean."

After the next seven days, after the person had been shaved, the priest would again examine the scall, and if it had not spread and was no more than skin deep, then the priest would pronounce him clean; the person was to wash his clothes and then be considered clean.

(35) “But if the scall has spread much in the skin after his cleansing, (36) Then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the scall has spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for yellow hair; he is unclean."

However, if the scall spreads on the person's skin, even after his cleansing, then he is again to be examined by the priest, and indeed, if the priest comes to the conclusion that the scall had spread, then the person was declared unclean.  There was no need to look for yellow hair; the mere spreading of the scall was enough to confirm it was at least a type of leprosy, and the person was pronounced unclean.

(37) “But if the scall appears to be at a stay, and there is black hair grown up within it, the scall has healed; he is clean, and the priest shall pronounce him clean."

Upon re-examination, if the scall appeared to be at a standstill and had not spread, and there was black hair within the area, then that indicated the scall had healed, and the person was pronounced clean.

(38) “If a man or a woman has in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots, (39) Then the priest shall look, and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh are darkish white, it is a freckled spot that grows in the skin; he is clean."

If a man or a woman had bright spots on their skin, even if they were bright white spots, if they had no other symptoms of leprosy, as an open sore or scall or white hair, then the priest was to examine them, and if their white spots were somewhat dark, they were considered just freckles in the skin, and the person was considered clean.

(40) "And the man whose hair has fallen off his head, he is bald, but he is clean."

A man whose hair had fallen out was just considered bald and was clean.  Not every deformity of the skin and head was leprosy, and in these verses, God gave directions for discerning what was to be considered leprosy.

(41) "And he whose hair has fallen from his forehead, he is bald on the forehead, but he is clean."

No matter what pattern his baldness took, whether in the back, all over, or in the front, it was just considered baldness if there were no other symptoms, and the bald man was to be considered clean.

(42) “And if there is on the bald head or bald forehead a reddish-white sore, it is leprosy breaking out on his bald head or his bald forehead."

However, if there was a reddish-white sore on the bald head, then it was considered leprosy breaking out on his bald head or forehead.

(43) "Then the priest shall examine it, and behold, if the swelling of the sore is reddish-white on his bald head or on his bald forehead, as the appearance of leprosy on the skin of the flesh, (44) He is a leprous man, he is unclean; the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is on his head."

The priest was to examine the reddish-white sore, and indeed, if the swelling of the sore was reddish-white in his bald area, like leprosy found elsewhere in the skin on the body, he was to be considered a leprous man.  Note that in the case of baldness, a priest could not look to hair color as one of the signs of leprosy, but if the sore had the other characteristics of a leprous sore found on other parts of the flesh, the priest was to pronounce him unclean as he had a leprous plague on his head.

(45) "And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be torn and his head bare; and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’"

A leper was to tear his clothes and bare his head, as in mourning.  He was to put a covering over his lips, which might be a reference to the practice of tying up the jaws of the dead with a linen cloth, as some suggested.  However, I find it more likely that it was to keep his breath from infecting others, as he was also to cry out that he was unclean to caution those who would come near him.  I'm sure it could have been a little of both as so many things were indeed symbolic in the Old Testament.

(46) "All the days in which the plague is in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; his habitation shall be outside the camp."

During the time a leper suffered the affliction of that disease he was to be considered defiled and unclean.  He was to dwell outside the camp.  The original word "badad" does indeed mean alone, but it also and probably more rightly in this case means "separately".  The leper was to separate himself from the general public.  There are other scripture mentions which indicate that lepers may have associated together outside the camp, so they weren't necessarily destined to be completely alone.  Lepers were just to be quarantined away from the rest of the people while they were afflicted.

(47) "The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment, (48) Whether it be in the warp or woof of linen or wool, whether in a skin or in anything made of skin, (49) And if the plague is greenish or reddish in the garment or in the skin, either in the warp or in the woof or in anything of skin, it is a plague of leprosy and shall be shown to the priest."

It is a little difficult to determine exactly what is meant by leprosy in a garment.  It could have been the garment of a leprous person that could indeed be contagious in itself, but then again, what may be being discussed here is something called leprosy in a garment, any garment, not necessarily one on an infected person.  Perhaps it was a type of mold or mildew; it was definitely something that was visible.  Whether found in the inter-crossing threads of a garment, or in the leather or skin of a garment, if the "plague" appeared greenish or reddish in the garment, it was considered a plague of leprosy and had to be shown to the priest.

(50) "And the priest shall examine the plague and isolate that which has the plague seven days."

The priest was to examine the suspicious spot in the garment and was to isolate it for seven days.

(51)  “And he shall examine the plague on the seventh day. If the plague has spread in the garment, either in the warp or in the woof, in the skin, or in any work that is made of skin; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean."

The priest was to examine the suspicious garment on the seventh day.  If the area had spread in the garment, either in the threads of the cloth or in any leather or skin, the plague was considered active and unclean.

(52) “He shall therefore burn that garment in which is the plague, whether warp or woof, in wool or in linen, or anything of leather, for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire."

I will go ahead and take a moment to more closely study "warp and woof".  Although those words generally mean the threads that are interwoven in a garment--warp referring to lengthwise threads and woof meaning those that crossed them, it is hard to understand how a "leprous" spot could be on one thread and not the crossing one.  Some Bible scholars believe what is rather meant is "inside and out".  That does make logical sense.  After seven days, if the plague was found to be spread in the garment, whether in cloth or whether in skin, inside or outside of the garment, it was considered a "fretting" leprosy, that is, "embittered, painful, picking, pricking, irritating", all words that seems to indicate an "active" leprosy.  If it was considered active, the garment was to be burnt in the fire.

(53) "And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague has not spread in the garment, either in the warp or in the woof, or in anything made of skin, (54) Then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which is the plague; and he shall isolate it another seven days."

However, if the priest examined the garment, and the plague had not spread in any part of it, then the priest ordered that the garment be washed and he isolated it for another seven days.

(55) "And the priest shall examine the plague after it has been washed, and, behold, if the plague has not changed its color, and the plague has not spread, it is unclean, and you shall burn it in the fire; it is fret inward, whether it be bare inside or outside."

The priest was again to examine the garment after it had been washed, and I'm assuming after the next seven days, and if the plague had not changed in color, even if it had not spread, it was still considered unclean and to be burned.  "Fret inward", originally "pechetheth", meant "hollowed out".  I believe the sense here is that even if the spot had not spread, if it had not changed its color, then it was considered as active and eating away "inside" away from view, perhaps.  But whether inside or outside, if the color was not changed after washing, the item had to be burned.

(56) "And if the priest looks, and, behold, the plague is somewhat dark after the washing of it, then he shall tear it out of the garment, out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof."

However, if after the washing and the additional seven days, the plague was somewhat darker, indicating the diseased color had faded somewhat, then rather than burn the whole garment, the priest would tear the spot out of the garment, whether it be in the threads of the cloth or in the skin.

(57) "And if it appears again in the garment, either in the warp or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is a spreading plague; you shall burn that in which the plague is with fire."

However, if the plague appeared again anywhere else in the garment, in cloth or in skin, it was a spreading plague after all, and was to be burned in the fire.

(58) “And the garment, either warp or woof, or whatever thing of skin it may be, which you shall wash, if the plague has disappeared from it, then it shall be washed a second time, and shall be clean."

If after washing, the plague had disappeared completely from the garment, it was to be washed a second time and would then be considered clean.

(59) “This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, either in the warp or woof, or in anything of skins, to pronounce it clean or to pronounce it unclean.”

The preceding rules were considered the laws of leprosy in a garment, either to declare it free from the plague of leprosy, or as infected with it, and so accordingly dispose of it.  The chapter as a whole included the laws concerning leprosy in people and in garments.

Some of the old commentaries, specifically Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible and Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, described how leprosy was an illustration of sin.  Leprosy began with a spot but soon spread.  Sin begins with a seed of iniquity that gradually increases.  Leprosy was infectious, not only to the person’s body, but also to his clothes; because of the infectious nature of leprosy, the leper became a danger to those around him.  So also sin spreads and affects the mind of the sinner, and by his thoughts and actions, the sinner spreads his sin wherever he goes.  As leprosy affected the clothing, so sin affects all that the sinner has and does.  The leper was to be separated from society and was to publicly proclaim his uncleanness.  If the sinner's actions are serious enough, he may be separated from society, but he is certainly separated from God and His kingdom.  If he wishes to be saved, the sinner must proclaim his uncleanness and his need for Jesus Christ and His sacrifice by which the sinner's guilt may be washed away.  The fact that lepers were cleansed was one of the signs by which the Christ would be known:

Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: “The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them." - Matthew 11:2-5

Ceremonial Uncleanness and Purification of Women in Childbirth

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 12:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

The dietary laws in the preceding chapter were delivered both to Moses and Aaron, but now the Lord spoke only to Moses.

(2) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean.'"

The Lord instructed Moses to tell the children of Israel of these additional clean and unclean laws.  First He began with a woman whom had given birth to a male child.  Immediately after the birth, she was to be considered unclean for seven days afterward which is apparently the same amount of time a woman was considered unclean after her regular monthly menstruation began.

(3) "‘And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.'"

On the eighth day, that is, the baby boy's eighth day of life and after the seven days that the mother was considered ceremonially unclean, the baby boy was to be circumcised.

(4) "'And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying thirty-three days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purifying are fulfilled.'"

After the circumcision of her male child, the mother was to continue a period of purification for another 33 days, which made a total of forty days' purification.  During this time, she was to touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the court of the sanctuary.  This uncleanness was in no way considered the fault of the woman or as a punishment to her, but was a result of the time it took for the natural expulsion of blood and afterbirth after the birth of a child.  As the Lord considered it a blessing to bring forth children, this was an example of a time when a person would necessarily become unclean, through no fault of her own, but by observing the days of purification, she would then be restored to a clean state, and could approach the Lord.  Thankfully, our Lord Jesus Christ came as our ultimate sacrifice to cover us with His precious blood, so that we are now able to approach our Lord God with boldness and confidence (Ephesians 3:12).

(5) "‘But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying sixty-six days.'"

If the woman gave birth to a female child, she was to be considered unclean for two weeks, in the same way she was considered unclean during her regular monthly menstruation.  Why double the time as for a male child?  For one thing, the male was to be circumcised on the eighth day; no such time constraint was on a female child.  The mother's period of purification for a female child continued another 66 days, making it a total of 80 days, doubling the forty days for a male child.  Offended feminists have long hated such perceived discrepancies between the sexes in the Bible, but there may be a plausible and justified explanation for the discrepancy.  Not that God Almighty needs a justification; that it was His will alone is justification enough.  However, generally there was what we lesser humans would consider good sound reasoning behind such laws of the Lord, and this may be no exception.  Through circumcision, the male child satisfied half the required purification time.  It was not that more time was required when a woman had a female child, but rather only half the usual time was required when a woman had a male child because the baby participated in the purification requirements.

(6) "'And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to the priest.'"

Once her purification period had ended, whether 40 days or 80 days, the woman was to bring to the tabernacle to the priest, a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove for a sin offering.  She offered a burnt offering in thanksgiving to God for bringing her safely through child-bearing and in gratefulness for the blessing of the child; and she offered a sin offering to either complete her purification process from her ceremonial uncleanness, or to make atonement for what was really sin that may have occurred during the difficult pains of child-bearing.

(7) "'Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a male or a female.'"

The priest would take what the woman brought to him at the door of the tabernacle, and in turn, offer it before the Lord to make atonement for her for whatever sin may have occurred during her child-bearing, and to ceremonially cleanse her from the flow of blood from childbirth.  This same law applied whether it took place after 40 days for a male child, or if it took place after 80 days for a female child.

(8) "‘And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons—one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

If the woman was unable to bring a lamb, because she did not have one, nor could afford one, then the law allowed that she could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons instead, one being for the burnt offering and the other for the sin offering.  This was the case for Mary, the mother of Jesus; it was written in Luke 2:22-24 that when her days of purification were accomplished, she brought either a pair of turtledoves or a pair of pigeons.  It was suggested earlier that perhaps the sin offering was to atone for any sin which may have occurred during the difficulty of childbirth, but more likely it was acknowledgement that all are born into sin and guilty and deserving of death since the original sin by Eve.  This sin offering may have served as a remembrance of that original sin and of the promise as stated in 1 Timothy 2:15 that she would be saved through child-bearing if she would "continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control"; that is what pleases the Lord better than sacrifice:

"To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3

I will end this short post here.  I had originally continued my study and post into the next chapter, but as it is so long and unrelated, I will start a new post for that one, and will end this one here.

The Dietary Laws Concerning Clean and Unclean Animals

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 11:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them,

After the sad interruption to the institution of the levitical law in the last post, resulting in the immediate death of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, the Lord now spoke to both Moses and Aaron, the first being His chief magistrate and the second His high priest.  The Lord said:

(2) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth:'"

The Lord instructed Moses and Aaron to speak these words to the children of Israel, giving them dietary laws regarding what animals on the earth they could eat.  A distinction between clean and unclean animals had already been made before the flood; in Genesis 7:2, it was said that Noah took seven of every clean animal, and only two of the unclean.  The distinction between clean and unclean was now more fully explained:

(3) "'Whatever divides the hoof, and is cloven footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat.'"

The beasts that were allowed to be eaten had to possess all three characteristics as described above.  First, they had parted "hooves", that were "cloven" or split in two, to distinguish from animals which might have parted feet like dogs or cats but were not cased with the hoof horn, or animals with single hooves like horses.  In addition to the cloven hoof, the edible animals must chew the cud.  These animals chew and chew over and over again, even bringing up food to chew again, as they have more than one stomach for rumination.  This makes the food better prepared for digestion, therefore yielding better nutrition, and makes these animals fitter for food.

(4) "‘Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

As further and better explanation, the Lord described animals that might possess one or two qualities, but not the third, and were therefore not clean to eat.  The camel chewed the cud, but did not have true cloven hooves.  Google described the foot of a camel as this:  "The foot of a camel is made up of a large leathery pad, with two toes at the front, the bones of which are embedded in the foot. The padding makes the gait of a camel silent, and keeps it from sinking in the sand."  Therefore, the camel was considered unclean to eat.

(5) "'And the coney, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

The coney was a species of rock rabbit, or hyrax.  It chewed the cud, but did not have true cloven hooves, but rather had stumpy toes with hooflike nails, four toes on each front foot and three on each back foot, from what I have read.  This animal was unclean to eat.

(6) "'And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

The original word for "hare" here was "arnebeth".  The early commentators that I routinely study believe that "hare" was either a translation error or it may have been an extinct animal that no longer exists, "because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as 'arnebeth'” (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions).  However, many Biblical scholars since that time have explained that this was not an error or a contradiction in the Bible, but rather the term "chewing the cud" had a much broader meaning 3500 years ago than it does today in our modern man-made classification system.  One article from Answers in Genesis (I love this site!) explains it this way:

"Consider what rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.

"Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of 'cud' had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.

"But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated 'chew' is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as 'chew the cud' literally means something on the order of 'eats that which is brought forth again.'

"So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments."

Back to the scripture, even though hares chewed the cud, in a less restrictive way than we have come to know the meaning of the phrase, they did not have cloven hooves, and therefore were considered unclean.

(7) "'And the swine, though it divides the hoof and is clovenfooted, yet it does not chew the cud; it is unclean to you'"

The swine was completely cloven-footed, but because it did not chew the cud, it was unclean.  The pig seems to have always been regarded as the most unclean of all the four-legged animals.  It lives in filth and eats filthy food, and with only one stomach, there is no chewing the cud or rumination with it, so its flesh was certainly less wholesome, especially in hot climates. 

(8) "'Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.'"

The people were commanded not to eat the flesh of the animals in the preceding list, but also were commanded not to touch their carcasses, as they were unclean.  This prohibition must have only referred to the eating and handling of the dead unclean animals, as the animals were used in other ways.  They rode camels and used hogs' lard in medicines.  I don't see how you could get a hog's lard without touching a dead hog, but there were many provisions for a person who was temporarily considered unclean.  One simply could not avoid sometimes coming in contact with a dead animal, as in the instance of his camel dying on him.  Therefore, I could understand that the unclean animals might could be used in other ways; it just might be that those were unclean jobs and would require sacrificial cleansing.  However, the eating of the unclean animals was expressly prohibited.

(9) "‘These you shall eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas and in the rivers, they you shall eat.'"

Any fish that had both fins and scales, and lived in either fresh or salt water, was lawful to eat.

(10) "'And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination to you. (11) They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.'"

All water creatures that did not have both fins and scales, whether found in fresh water or salt, were unlawful to eat.  This would include eels, catfish, etc.  It is stressed that all things that move in the waters and any living things that were in the waters (that did not have fins and scales) were unlawful to eat.  This would include small worms or leeches and any shellfish, as well as perhaps huge sea serpents.  Not only were these types unlawful to eat, but they were an abomination, things to be abhorred and detested, not only with regard to eating them, but as of touching their carcasses, as well.

(12) "‘Whatever has no fins or scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you.'"

I find it interesting that it was stated three times that these finless and scaleless fish were an abomination.  I think it was well established that shellfish and catfish were not to be eaten!

(13) "'And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, ossifrage, and the osprey,'"

Next began a long list of birds that were not to be eaten and were to be considered an abomination.  There was no general description of what types of birds were allowed to be eaten, as with cloven-hoofed cud-chewing beasts, and finned and scaled fish, but just a list of the birds that were considered an abomination and not to be eaten.  In general, the list seems to contain scavengers and birds of prey.  It began with the eagle, the ossifrage, and the osprey.  The original word for "ossifrage" was "peres" which meant "claw" from the word "paras" which meant "break into pieces".  "Ossifrage" is a combination of two words, "osseous" and "fraction" and literally meant "bone-breaker".  Whatever it was, it was a bird that tore apart its food with its claws, and Brown-Driver-Briggs defined it as a bird of prey.  The "osprey" is a fish hawk, a large hawk that feeds on fish.

(14) "'And the vulture, and the kite after its kind;'"

The original word for "vulture" here is "daah" which means "to dart, to fly rapidly".  This is the only place in the Bible this particular word is used as a noun describing a bird, and that has led some Bible scholars to think it may have been, if not mistranslated, then reversed, and the verse should have read "...the kite, and the vulture after its kind..."  In Job 28:7, the word is "ayah" that is transcribed as "vulture", and that is the word that is translated as "kite" in the above verse, Leviticus 11:14.  Strong's defines "ayah" as "the screamer", or "a hawk, kite, or vulture"; Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as "hawk, falcon, or kite".  Both appear to be birds of prey, darting rapidly and screaming.

(15) "'Every raven after its kind;'"

Also considered an abomination and not to be eaten was the raven, the general term for scavenger birds of this kind, including the crow and magpie and other similar birds.

(16) "'And the owl, the night hawk, the cuckoo, and the hawk after its kind;'"

The words translated as "owl" were actually two words that look like "daughters of the owl".  Some Bible scholars believe this might be rather the ostrich, since the owl is mentioned again later. The original word translated as "night hawk" was "tachmas" which comes from a root word meaning "to be violent" which Strong's says indicates it was some unclean bird of prey.  The word translated as "cuckoo" was "shachaph" from an unused root word that meant "to peel, that is, emaciate", and therefore indicated a slight lean bird.  The cuckoo is generally a slender bird, which led Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, to conclude, "A fowl which, from its natural constitution or manner of life, is incapable of becoming plump or fleshy, must always be unwholesome; and this is reason sufficient why such should be prohibited."  However, the cuckoo's diet and dietary habits are not particularly repulsive or abominable, which has led some scholars to believe that the sea mew or mew gull was more likely meant.  I don't see that the mew gull is particularly slender, but it is a small gull.  Brown-Driver-Briggs apparently wasn't completely satisfied with that translation, either, as one of their definitions was that it possibly was "an extinct bird, exact meaning unknown".  The original word for the last hawk mentioned in verse 16 was "nets" which can mean a flower or a hawk!  Once again Brown-Driver-Briggs says it's possible this was an extinct bird, but Strong's suggests that because the root word means "glare" or "brilliance", it refers to the bird's glaring or flashing speed.  Adam Clarke suggested the root actually meant something more akin to "shoot forth or spring forward" which referred to a flower, as well as the rapidity and length of flight of the hawk.

(17) "'And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl;'"

The word translated as "little owl" was "kos" and came from an unused root word meaning "hold together" or "cup".  Strong's suggested that the large cup-like cavity of the owl's eye might be why the word was also translated as "small owl".  I personally wondered if a pelican or some such bird might be meant because of the cup or pouch in its beak.  I found that some early scholars believed this was a possibility, too, but most rejected it because a later verse appears to include the pelican.  The original word translated as "cormorant" was "shalak" from a root word that means "to throw out or down, or cast".  It probably refers to a plunger or diver type bird.  The word translated as "great owl" was "yanshoph", and may be derived from the word "nesheph" meaning "twilight", the time in which owls mainly fly.

(18) "'And the swan, the pelican, and the gier eagle;'"

These words are getting almost impossible to positively translate, and I feel like I'm getting bogged down in the weeds!   The word translated as "swan" has been translated by other versions and by Bible scholars as anything from a flamingo to an owl!  The same word is translated as "mole" elsewhere, so who knows?  Brown-Driver-Briggs in one definition suffices to state that it's "an unclean animal of some kind" and also "perhaps an extinct lizard or bird, exact meaning unknown".  Here we have the word translated as "pelican"--"qaath", from the root word "qayah" meaning "to vomit", which may refer to the practice by the pelican.  The original word translated as "gier eagle" was "racham" which means "to love, be compassionate, be tender".  This is apparently a bird that tenderly cared for its young, which could mean the eagle or the vulture, or even the pelican that vomited to feed its young.

(19) "'And the stork, the heron after its kind, the lapwing, and the bat.'"

The original word for "stork" was "chasiydah", a form of the word "chasiyd" meaning "kind".  The stork seems to exemplify kindness throughout historical writings because of its tenderness to its young and its kindness in tending to its elderly parents.  The word translated as "heron" is another translated far and wide as many different words, so who knows?  "Lapwing" comes from a word admittedly of "uncertain derivation", stated by Strong's, so again, I would say it was anyone's guess as to what bird is meant.  Because Strong's only tells me that the word for "bat" is also of uncertain derivation, I will defer completely to Adam Clarke who wrote, "so called, according to Parkhurst, at, to fly, and alaph, darkness or obscurity, because it flies about in the dusk of the evening, and in the night...This being a sort of monster partaking of the nature of both a bird and beast, it might well be classed among unclean animals, or animals the use of which in food should be avoided."

(20) "'All fowls that creep, going upon all fours, shall be an abomination to you.'"

The word translated as "fowls" was "oph" which literally meant "covered with wings".  "Going upon all fours" is probably just a term that meant walking on the ground as opposed to flying in the air.  It may not literally mean only four feet or legs.  Winged creatures that walked on all fours would be an abomination.  This description would certainly include the bat mentioned before, but as far as six legged insects go, the following verses address them.

(21) "‘Yet these you may eat of every flying creeping thing that goes on all fours: those which have legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.'"

"Legs above their feet" surely referred to the large jointed legs of the grasshopper, cricket, and locust.  Although they were actually six-legged insects, these winged creeping things with large jointed back legs, larger and jointed above their other legs that crept upon the earth, were able to leap in great bounds upon the earth, and were considered clean and lawful to eat.

(22) "‘These of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, the bald locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.'"

Apparently a continuation from verse 21, the flying creeping things with legs above their feet with which to leap, included the locust, the cricket, and the grasshopper.  It is not known exactly how a bald locust differs from a regular locust.  Also worth noting, the KJV used the word "beetle" instead of cricket, but it was the only place in scripture that particular original word was found.  The actual meaning of the word "chargol" was "leaping insect", so a beetle could not be meant, but it's understandable how a cricket might look like a jumping beetle rather than a grasshopper.  It can be safely assumed that what is meant by this verse is that all varieties of grasshoppers, crickets, and locusts, having those large jointed leaping legs, were lawful to eat.

(23) "‘But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination to you.'"

I did not previously examine the word translated as "creeping things" before this mention.  The word "sherets" means "swarming things" and was used to mean insects.  The verse refers to all other flying insects which have four feet.  Apparently, locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets, were considered having only four feet and additionally having powerful leapers.  Therefore, any other flying insect that appeared to have only four legs as described above, was considered an abomination and unlawful to eat.  But what about insects that do not fly?  What about ants?  I honestly did not find that addressed in scripture.  Most scholars feel like "creeping things" or "swarming things" covered all insects, but scripture did say "flying creeping things".  I know some ants fly, but not all six-legged bugs fly, so it seemed to me those were not addressed.  Maybe I will come across it later in scripture.  Meanwhile, I did find a good article that gave a good summary on the characteristics of clean and unclean insects:

Characteristics of Clean and Unclean Insects

"Most orthoptera (an order of insects including grasshoppers and crickets) are vegetarians. Grasshoppers, according to Hemenway, have a crop, gizzard, gastric caeca (intestines) and a stomach, in that order, from front to back. Like clean animals, grasshoppers chew their food with two powerful grinding jaws called mandibles. Unclean insects are generally scavengers, omnivores and occasionally predators. They bite and suck instead of chew thoroughly like the grasshopper. Even though bees are unclean, their honey is fit to eat, since it is converted pollen from flowers, and not actually from the bees themselves.

"Many unclean "creeping things" are notorious disease carriers. Hemenway notes that mosquitoes transmit malaria, yellow fever, and other diseases. Flies transmit tularemia, ticks can transmit germs of Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and rats host fleas which carry Bubonic plague, and can transmit numerous diseases and parasites to man."

* Note - I am assuming the Hemenway mentioned in the article above is David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Back to scripture:

(24) "'And by these you shall be unclean: whoever touches the carcass of them shall be unclean until evening.'"

"By these" following circumstances, a person was considered to be unclean.  The list began with the incident of a person who touched the carcass of an unclean animal from the ones described above; if that happened, he would be considered unclean until the evening.  In many cases, it would be necessary for someone to touch the dead carcass of an unclean animal, if only to remove it, so this was more of a ceremonial uncleanness, which prohibited the one who touched the unclean carcass to come into the tabernacle, to eat of the holy things, etc., until evening.

(25) "'And whoever carries any part of the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.'"

Whoever did carry any part of the carcass of an unclean animal was to wash his clothes, but still be considered ceremonially unclean until evening.

(26) "'The carcasses of every beast which divides the hoof, but is not cloven-footed nor chews the cud, are unclean to you; everyone who touches them shall be unclean.'"

A review of the type of animal that would be considered unclean--one whose hoof might be divided, but not cloven-hoofed, and one that did not chew the cud--that animal's carcass would be unclean and anyone who touched its carcass would be considered unclean until evening.

(27) "‘And whatever goes on its paws, among all kinds of animals that go on all fours, those are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening.'"

The original word for "paws", that is "kaph", was usually translated as "hands", so this would indicate animals that had hand-like feet, divided like fingers.  Those animals that walked on their paws among the animals that went on all fours, distinguishing them from perhaps birds that walk on just two feet that are divided into finger-like toes or talons, were considered unclean.  This would include animals such as dogs, cats, lions, bears, monkeys, etc.  If anyone touched the carcass of such an animal, he would be considered unclean until the evening.

(28) "'And he who bears the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you.'"

Anyone who had occasion to carry the carcass of one of these such animals was to wash his clothes and he would be considered unclean until the evening.

(29) "'These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the weasel, the mouse, and the tortoise after its kind;'"

"Sherets", the word translated as "creeping things", usually indicated insects as it came from the root "sharats" meaning "swarm".  "Sharats" can also mean "wriggle" or "creep", and can even mean "to multiply abundantly" (as with rabbits, as they say), so "creeping things" also refers to small animals, mostly rodents that would appear to multiply and swarm.  A list of which of these kinds of creeping animals were to be considered unclean was begun, and it included the "weasel".  The original word "choled" is used only this once in scripture.  It comes from the root word "cheled" which means "to glide swiftly".  Something along the lines of a weasel was thought to be meant, although Brown-Driver-Briggs states that it was "perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown".  Mice were included in this list of unclean creeping animals, as well as the "tsab", translated in the KJV as "tortoise".  Most of the other versions translated this word as "lizard", but I tend to agree with the KJV, as the original word comes from an unused root word that meant "covered" or "canopy".  That does seem to suggest a turtle or tortoise.

(30) "'And the ferret, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole.'"

Also included in the list of unclean creeping animals was the ferret.  The original word "anaqah" was only used this once in this form.  The word as a verb form meant "shrieking, crying, groaning", and Brown-Driver-Briggs stated again that it could be "an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown"; we know it was "an unclean animal".  The word translated as "chameleon" was "koach", and meant "strength, power, vigor, might"; for this reason, most translations agree this meant a much larger more powerful lizard, perhaps even the crocodile.  "Letaah", the word translated as "lizard" is only used this once, and comes from an unused root meaning "to hide", which I suppose could refer to lizards in general, but I couldn't help but note that that might actually be the word that best defined a chameleon, rather than "koach".  Once again we have a word only used once in the word translated as "snail".  "Chomet" comes from an unused root meaning "to lie low", which sounds more like a type of lizard to me, in agreement with most other versions (other than the KJV), but could also be "perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning is unknown".  Finally, the original word for "mole" is the same word for "swan" in verse 18 above, "tanshemeth".  Strong's states this is from the root "nasham" (I'll take their word for it), and means "properly a hard breather".  I suppose that might seem a proper description of an underground mole.  Once again Brown-Driver-Briggs said this could be an extinct animal or bird, since the exact meaning is unclear.  Although the meaning of most of the words in the last two verses are unclear, I think we can surmise that these were, for the most part, small swarming rodents and reptiles; and they were considered unclean.

(31) "'These are unclean to you among all that creep; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening.'"

In a summarizing statement, the animals listed in verses 29-30 were considered the unclean animals from the ones that creep, and whoever touched their bodies when they were dead would be considered unclean until the evening.

(32) "'And upon whatever, any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be unclean, whether it be any vessel of wood, clothing, skin, or sack, whatever vessel it be, in which any work is done, it must be put in water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; so it shall be cleansed.'"

If the dead body of any of the above unclean creeping things fell upon an object, that object also became unclean.  Any wooden vessel or utensil, any type of clothing, any animal skin serving as a bottle, sack, or anything else, whatever item it might be that was being used at the time, if it came in contact with the dead body of one of these creeping things, it had to be put into water, and would be considered unclean until evening.  The object would be considered cleansed after it was put into water and after the evening came.  I ought to point out that although I took the above scripture to mean anything with which the dead unclean animal came in contact, Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, wrote that it only pertained to whatever instrument was made of wood, cloth, skin, or sack, as mentioned immediately before in the verse.  That is plausible as scripture goes on to describe vessels of other materials.

(33) "'And every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it.'"

If the dead body of any of the above mentioned creeping things fell into an earthenware vessel, whatever was contained within the vessel was considered unclean, and the vessel itself was to be broken.

(34) "'Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water falls shall be unclean, and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.'"

Clean meats and drinks that were otherwise lawfully able to be consumed, were to be considered unclean if they came in contact with any contaminated unclean water that had become unclean because of an unclean animal that had fallen into it.

(35) "‘And everything on which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it is an oven or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down, for they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you.'"

Here it does indeed say that anything upon which the dead body of one of these unclean creeping things fell, would become unclean.  Even if it was an oven or range, it was to be broken down if it came in contact with the carcass of one of these animals.  These ovens or ranges would have been temporary sorts made with stones upon which pots would be placed.  I believe the idea here would be if a rat, for instance, fell upon the stones of a stove, those stones would become unclean and must be broken, and a new set of stones would have to be prepared to act as an oven or range.

(36) "‘Nevertheless a fountain or pit, in which there is plenty of water, shall be clean, but whatever touches any such carcass shall be unclean.'"

An exception was granted in the case of an unclean creeping thing's carcass falling into a fountain or a well or cistern where there was plenty of water.  In the case of an abundance of water, the whole would not be considered unclean because of the dead thing falling in it.  However, the hand or vessel that touched the carcass to remove it, or any other thing that touched it, would be considered unclean.

(37) "'And if any part of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.'"

If the unclean carcass fell upon a seed about to be sown, that seed was still considered clean.  Perhaps that was because "such seed would not be used for man's food till it had received many alterations in the earth whereby such pollution was taken away" (John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible).

(38) "‘But if water is put on the seed, and any part of their carcass falls on it, it shall be unclean to you.'"

However, if the carcass fell upon seed that had been watered, it was to be considered unclean.  Perhaps this was because a wet seed might soak up and retain the impurities of the carcass.  Maybe a wet seed indicated one that was being prepared for planting and wouldn't have been planted until it was dried and cleansed.  Any such wet seed that was contaminated by an unclean carcass would be considered unclean and plucked away, not to be dried and used.

(39) "‘And if any beast of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening.'"

If an animal that was lawful to eat died, whoever touched the carcass would be considered unclean until evening.  I find it a little amusing to what extent some of the old commentators went to explain how certain parts of the carcass were okay to touch while others were not, to explain how skins, horns, hooves, etc. were allowed to be removed and used.  I believe they were unclean when they collected these items, and there was no horrible shame in that.  It's like the unclean menstruating woman, or the person who by necessity had to remove an unclean carcass, or any carcass, for that matter.  There were times, out of necessity, that one would become unclean, and out of reverence, respect, and obedience to the Lord, they would be considered unclean for the appropriate time, but once that time had passed, would again be considered clean and able to participate in offerings, festivals, and the things of the Lord.

(40) "'And he who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; he also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.'"

A clean animal that was lawful to eat that was killed to be offered as sacrifice and/or eaten posed no threat of uncleanness.  However, a lawful to eat clean animal that died of itself would be the one with the carcass that would make one unclean.  Any person who ate of this unclean carcass would have to wash his clothes and be considered unclean until evening.  Additionally, any person who carried the carcass would also have to wash his clothes and be considered unclean until evening.

(41) "‘And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.'"

Every creeping thing that crept low to the ground on the earth was to be considered an abomination, and expressly not to be eaten, which I suppose had not been expressly stated to this point.  We were told they were unclean, but this statement more completely tells us they were not to be eaten, and were to be considered an abomination.

(42) "‘Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has more feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination.'"

I really don't quite understand why only eight creeping creatures were mentioned before, but this does seem to answer the question about other insects and creeping things that did not seem to be mentioned in the verses above.  Whatever crawled on its belly, like snakes, worms, snails, etc.; and whatever went on all fours, certainly meant to be said of the creeping things just mentioned, which probably meant the likes of the weasel, mole, mouse, lizard, etc.; and whatever had more feet (more than four) which would include all insects, caterpillars, centipedes, etc.; these all were not to be eaten because they were considered an abomination.

(43) "‘You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled by them. (44) For I am the LORD your God; you shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for I am holy; neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'"

The people were not to makes themselves unclean and abominable, and thus defiled, by eating or handling the dead bodies of these abominable creatures.  The reason for this was that their Lord God was a holy God and He wanted them to be a holy and separate people.  The people were to consecrate themselves, consciously choose between good and evil, observing the divine law and not defiling themselves with those things forbidden and considered unclean by God, in this case, the creeping things of the earth.

(45) "‘For I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.'"

The Lord reminded the people that He was the Lord who was bringing them out of the land of Egypt, He being their God and they His chosen people; and for that reason they should do their best to live holy lives to abide in the holiness of their Lord.

(46) "‘This is the law of the beasts and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, (47) To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.'"

All the preceding verses in this chapter constituted the law distinguishing between the clean and unclean animals of the earth, particularly detailing the difference between those that may be eaten and those that were forbidden to be eaten.

God called His people to be a separate people, the special people of Yahweh.  These dietary laws daily reminded them of the covenant that distinguished them from the other nations of the world.  By Jesus Christ, it was revealed to us in Matthew 15:11, that it actually wasn't what went into a man's mouth that defiled him, but rather that which came out.  The apostle Paul told us in Romans 14:17 that the kingdom of God was not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.  As I find true in all of the Old Testament, these dietary laws were symbolic and a prequel to and illustration of the coming Christ.  As Christians, we are free from such burdensome dietary observances.  However, the abominable foods are symbolic of abominable sins of which we should not partake, nor even touch.  When we do, as will necessarily happen because we are imperfect fallen humans, we can come back to God in the evening through Jesus Christ who covers our sins.   However, we must not abuse our freedom.  Peter said in 1 Peter 2:16 that we must not use our freedom as a cover for evil, but as servants of God.  The Lord has redeemed and called His people, that they may be holy, even as He is holy.  We must be separate from the world and leave the company of the ungodly, and be zealous followers of God and all good works (2 Tim 3:17 and Titus 2:14). 

The Sin and Death of Nadab and Abihu

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 10:1) And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.

In the last chapter and post, Aaron, who along with his sons had been previously solemnly consecrated to the priest's office, began the exercise of his priestly office and offered the first offerings of himself and of the people.  A fire had come from the Lord indicating His acceptance of the offerings that Aaron had offered just as had been instructed by Moses.

Now Nadab and Abihu, the two oldest sons of Aaron (Exodus 6:23), each took his own censer, a vessel in which coals of fire were put and incense upon them, which the sons indeed put, and they offered "strange fire" before the Lord, which the Lord had not commanded be done.  The original word for "strange" was "zoor" and it meant "strange, profane" and "to be estranged, as to commit adultery".  At first glance, it might seem that we don't know exactly what Nadab and Abihu did that made their fire profane, but I believe the answer is in the end of the verse that said God "had not commanded them".  While everyone else was prostrate in awe and reverence and humility, these two did not wait for the solemn instruction with which everything else had been done up to this point, but of themselves took their censers and put fire and incense and burned it.  The rituals that took place in the tabernacle were all for the Lord and per His instruction.  Deciding of themselves to offer incense was offering a strange fire not authorized by God, and forbidden, like had been commanded in Exodus 30:9 when it was said that no "strange incense" be burned on the incense altar, "strange" meaning any other incense for any other purpose other than what was commanded.  The brothers offered "strange fire" of themselves that had not been commanded by God.

(2) And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

The fire from the Lord that had just sanctified the ministry of Aaron as well pleasing to the Lord, now brought destruction to Aaron's two oldest sons because they performed a self-willed act of worship.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, pointed out that this was consistent with what was said later in the Gospel:

"For we are to God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savor of death leading to death, and to the other the savor of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?" - 2 Corinthians 2:15-16

The very same salvation Gospel of Christ means life to them who accept and are saved by it, and death to those who reject it.  This fire that came from the Lord devoured Nadab and Abihu, meaning devoured their lives, and they died right there before the Lord.  They were not completely devoured to non-existence as a later verse will show.

(3) Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying, 'I will be sanctified in those who come near Me, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace.

Moses spoke immediately to Aaron repeating the words of the Lord.  Although this exact quote of the Lord is not found in scripture, there is a hint of it in Exodus 19:22 when the Lord said that the priests who came near to Him must be sanctified "lest the LORD break forth upon them".  The Lord is a holy God who must be approached with reverence and seriousness and His presence is not to be entered into vainly or lightly.  Aaron held his peace meaning he acknowledged and submitted to God's righteous justice and did not murmur against His Lord.

(4) And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.”

Here is where we see that the bodies of Nadab and Abihu were not totally devoured to nothingness because Moses called upon Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, who was the uncle of Aaron, to carry Nadab and Abihu out of the camp.

(5) So they went near and carried them in their coats out of the camp as Moses had said.

They did as Moses said and carried the bodies in their coats out of the camp.  It's interesting to note that although fire came out and killed them, perhaps as if by a flash of lightning, neither their bodies nor their clothes were burned up.

(6) And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, “Do not uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the people; but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD has kindled."

Moses told Aaron and Aaron's two remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, that they were not to uncover their heads or rent their clothes, which were signs of grief and mourning.  As a matter of fact, they were strictly forbidden to do it or else they would die and God's wrath would come upon all the people.  Lamenting so demonstrably for them would have sent the message that even though their family members' actions were so heinous and provoking to God, and so deserving of the punishment He inflicted on them, their mourning might be seen as justifying the crimes and accusing God of unjust severity.  In addition, they were not to be diverted from or disturbed in their present service to their Lord.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, put it this way, "By this they must make it to appear that they had a greater value and affection for their God and their work than for the best friend they had in the world."  However, as a whole, they and the whole house of Israel, should bemoan the incident, not so much for the death of their brethren, but for the irreverence to the Lord that had occurred, and in respect and recognition of the Lord's sovereign and powerful judgment, and for His wrath that could just as easily consume all of them as they were sinners, as well.

(7) "And you shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest you die, for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you.” And they did according to the word of Moses.

Additionally, Moses told Aaron and his sons that they were not to go outside the door of the tabernacle as they were consecrated with oil to the priest's office, the oil being the symbol of the Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Life; and they were to be completely attentive to their priestly affairs dedicated to their Lord preferring service to Him over any mourning or funeral customs.  They did just as Moses told them to do.

(8) And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, (9) “Do not drink wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations,"

The Lord now spoke directly to Aaron, rather than through Moses.  He told him that neither he nor his sons were to drink wine or any strong drink when they went into the tabernacle.  It is believed by many Bible commentators that the reason for this prohibition at this time might be because Nadab and Abihu were drunk when they offered strange fire.  That is certainly possible.  They had feasted that day and probably drank freely in celebration of their first day into their priesthood.  Service in the priest's office called for clear heads and clean hearts in the administration of sacred things.  Even if the brothers had not been drunk, God was pointing out to Aaron that this was a most sacred service they were undertaking and it was to be administered with reverence and respect and wine and strong drink were prohibited under the penalty of death, and as a statute forever.  Note the prohibition seems to just apply to when they were going into the tabernacle; they were permitted to drink wine at other times.

(10) "And that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean, (11) And that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by the hand of Moses.”

The Lord continued speaking to Aaron giving him the reason for the prohibition, that the priests' minds be clear and their understanding and judgment correct, that they be able to distinguish between holy and unholy (which obviously Nadab and Abihu were not able to do), and clean and unclean, and that they be able to properly teach the children of Israel all the statutes that God had passed to Moses to pass to them.

(12) And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons who were left, “Take the grain offering that remains of the offerings made by fire to the LORD, and eat it without leaven beside the altar, for it is most holy. (13) And you shall eat it in the holy place, because it is your due and your sons’ due, of the sacrifices made by fire to the LORD; for so I have been commanded."

Moses now spoke to Aaron and his remaining two sons, and told them to take the grain offering that remained of the offerings made by fire to the Lord (all but the handful that was burnt), and instructed them to eat it without leaven beside the altar, here called the holy place, because that part of the grain offering that remained for the priests was most holy.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, pointed out that this was not the previously designated "holy place" next to the "holiest of holies" within the tabernacle, but was a so-called holy place within the court of the tabernacle next to the altar at the door of the tabernacle.  This part of the grain offering was for Aaron and his sons only, not for any other family, etc., and was to be eaten nowhere else but in the tabernacle.  Moses lets Aaron and his sons know that this was the will of God as He had commanded him.

(14) "And the wave breast and heave shoulder you shall eat in a clean place, you, your sons, and your daughters with you; for they are your due and your sons’ due, which are given from the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel."

Moses continued speaking to Aaron and his sons, telling them that the breast that was waved and the shoulder that was heaved was provided to them and their families and was to be eaten in a clean place, but not necessarily a holy place.

(15) "The heave shoulder and the wave breast they shall bring with the offerings of fat made by fire, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be yours and your sons’ with you, by a statute forever, as the LORD has commanded.”

Moses continued speaking to Aaron and his sons, continuing the thought from the previous verse that these items were given from the sacrifices of peace offerings brought by the children of Israel with the offerings of fat, and the breast and the shoulder were to be Aaron's and his sons' portion by an everlasting statute commanded by the Lord.

(16) And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who were left, saying, (17) “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?"

Leviticus 9:15 told of Aaron taking the goat, the sin offering for the people, killing it, and offering it for sin.  Verse 16 stated he then brought the burnt offering.  These were two different offerings as stated in Leviticus 9:3--a kid of the goats for a sin offering and a calf and a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering.  Moses now looked for the goat of the sin offering and saw that it was burnt, and he was angry with Aaron's sons, Eleazar and Ithamar.  The flesh of this goat was not to be burnt, but to be eaten by the priests in the holy place, according to Leviticus 6:25-26:  “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before the LORD. It is most holy. The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of meeting.'"  Moses demanded to know why the sons had not eaten the sin offering in a holy place; it was most holy and to be eaten by the priests to bear the iniquity of the people.  In this way, they bore the sins of the people as their own, and then made atonement for them.  In this, they were symbolic types of Christ, who took the people's sins upon Him and bore them in His own body on the cross, and made full satisfaction and atonement for them.  Seeing that the eating of the sin offering of the people was of so great importance, the neglect of it by the priests angered Moses.  You would think that just after witnessing what happened to their brothers, they would have been more carefully attentive to the laws of God.

(18) "Behold, the blood of it was not brought inside the holy place; indeed you should have eaten it in a holy place, as I commanded.”

Moses referred back to the instructions given in Leviticus 6:30, which were that if any blood of the sin offering had been brought into the tabernacle, then the sin offering was not to be eaten, but was to be burnt in the fire.  However, in this case, he said that no blood of the sin offering was brought inside the holy place, therefore they were to have eaten it in a holy place, as he had previously told them.

(19) And Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, this day they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, and such things have befallen me; and if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?”

Moses had directed his anger toward Eleazar and Ithamar, but it was Aaron who answered.  Perhaps what they did was by Aaron's direction, and therefore he apologized for it.  In essence what he said was that on this very day when they had sacrificed sin and burnt offerings to the Lord, this great calamity had befallen him; and would it have been pleasing to the Lord that those so humbled and distressed by the sin of their family members and God's divine judgment, would have chosen to feast on the most holy flesh of the sin offering?

(20) And when Moses heard that, he was content.

Moses was content with Aaron's answer.  God judges the heart of man rather than his actions.  In verse 3 above, Aaron had held his peace and not openly and audibly mourned for his sons.  In his excuse to Moses, he did not say that it was in an act of mourning (choosing to mourn for his sons over the law of God) that he chose not to feast on the sin offering, but rather wondered aloud if it would have been acceptable to the Lord to be done in his present sorrowful spirit.  Indeed, God had provided in other places that what could not be eaten was to be burnt.  Aaron's unfitness for duty, natural and not sinful, was given a great allowance and God had mercy on him and his remaining sons.  It appeared that Aaron did aim to be acceptable to the Lord, and this was most surely a case of the spirit being willing, but the flesh was weak.  God judged Aaron's heart, and we being unable to see within a person's heart, should learn to be careful not to judge every little action of another person.  We must learn to forgive and show mercy just as we are forgiven and shown mercy by our Lord.

The First Offerings of Aaron Consumed by Fire from the Lord

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 9:1) And it came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel.

In the last post, Aaron and his sons had just finished seven days of their priestly consecration.  On the eighth day Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel together.

(2) And he said to Aaron, “Take for yourself a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD."

Moses told Aaron to take for himself the animals which would be sacrifices for Aaron himself, to make atonement for his own sin.  He was to take a young calf for a sin offering, which I have read Jewish writers have suggested was to remind him of the matter of the golden calf.  He was also to take a ram for a burnt offering, both animals without blemish.

(3) “And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying, ‘Take a kid of the goats for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering, (4) Also a bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD, and a grain offering mixed with oil; for today the LORD will appear to you.’”

Moses instructed Aaron, now as high priest, to speak to the children of Israel, telling them to take a goat kid for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year and without blemish, for a burnt offering.  Additionally, they were to take a bull and a ram for peace offerings and a grain offering mixed with oil.  Moses told Aaron that the Lord would appear to them that day.

(5) And they brought what Moses commanded before the tabernacle of the congregation; and all the congregation drew near and stood before the LORD.

Aaron and his sons and all the children of Israel brought the sacrifices Moses had instructed them to bring to the tabernacle.  "All the congregation", which may mean the elders who had been called in verse 1 as representatives of all the congregation, drew near and stood before the Lord, before the tabernacle where God dwelt.

(6) And Moses said, “This is the thing which the LORD commanded you to do, and the glory of the LORD will appear to you.”

Moses told the people that what they had done in bringing the animals as he had commanded (verse 5) was actually what the Lord had commanded they do.  Additionally, he told them the glory of the Lord would appear to them.

(7) And Moses said to Aaron, “Go to the altar, offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them, as the LORD commanded.”

A lot of good stuff is packed into this verse!  First Moses told Aaron to go to the altar and offer his own sin offering and burnt offering to make atonement for himself, and then for the people.  A sinful man could not make atonement for another until he was pure from sin; that was a character only to be found in Christ, our great High Priest, the completely sinless one who could atone for and take away the sins of the people.  It was pointed out by most all the old commentaries I read that this showed the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood that the high priest was obliged to make an expiation for his own sins before he could make one for the sins of the people.  This was pointed out in Hebrews 7:27 when the apostle said that Jesus Christ "who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself."  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, suggested that Aaron's sin offering maybe wasn't so much a sacrifice for his own actual sins as it was a general acknowledgment of his sinful nature "and of his future duty to offer for his own sins and those of the people".  I can see that as the scripture stated that Aaron was to offer his own sin offering and burnt offering and make atonement for himself "and for the people".

One more point in only the first part of this scripture was also made by Albert Barnes.  He pointed out that Aaron was not required to make a peace offering for himself.  He suggested it was enough that he should participate in the peace offerings of the consecration (Lev. 8:31), and in the two peace offerings about to be sacrificed for the people.  After offering his own offerings, the second part of the verse states Aaron was to offer the offering of the people to make atonement for them.  All this was as the Lord commanded.

(8) Aaron therefore went to the altar and killed the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself.

Aaron did as Moses told him and went to the altar, and he himself killed the calf for his own sin offering.

(9) And the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him; and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it on the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the base of the altar.

Aaron's sons probably held the basins that collected the blood from the calf Aaron killed, and they brought the basins to Aaron.  Aaron then dipped his finger in the blood, put it on the horns of the altar, and then poured out the blood at the base of the altar.  This was just as Moses had done at his consecration in Leviticus 8:15.

(10) But the fat, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering he burned on the altar, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Evidently, there is some controversy over this scripture because of what is said in a future verse, but for now with the information that is given, I will take this verse at face value, and say that Aaron took the fat, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering calf and burned it on the altar as the Lord had told Moses he was to do.

(11) And the flesh and the hide he burned with fire outside the camp.

Aaron took the flesh and the skin of the sacrifice and burned it outside the camp.  This seems consistent with what the Lord had told Moses in Leviticus chapter 4 (verses 3 through 12) was to be done by an anointed priest who sinned.  This was Aaron's sin offering.

(12) And he killed the burnt offering; and Aaron’s sons presented to him the blood, which he sprinkled all around on the altar.

Next Aaron killed the ram that he had brought for a burnt offering (verse 2 above).  His sons brought him the blood that had probably been collected in basins when he killed the ram, and he sprinkled it all around on the altar.

(13) And they presented the burnt offering to him, with its pieces and head, and he burned them on the altar.

This seems consistent with what Moses did with the ram of the burnt offering in Leviticus 8:20, except that Aaron's sons were assisting him and they were the ones who handed Aaron the pieces of the ram after it had been cut up, and he then burned them on the altar.

(14)  And he washed the inwards and the legs, and burned them on the burnt offering on the altar.

Aaron washed the inwards and the legs of the ram and burned them on the altar, again consistent with what Moses had done in Leviticus 8:21.

(15) And he brought the people's offering, and took the goat, which was the sin offering for the people, and killed it and offered it for sin, like the first one.

Then Aaron brought the people's offering as described in verse 3 above, and took the goat which was the people's sin offering, and killed it as he had done with his own sin offering.

(16) And he brought the burnt offering and offered it according to the prescribed manner.

Next Aaron brought the people's burnt offering, a calf and a lamb of the first year (verse 3 above), and offered that offering in the prescribed manner, as commanded in other instances regarding a burnt sacrifice (verses 12-14 above, Lev. 1:3-9, Lev. 8:18-21).

(17) And he brought the grain offering, took a handful of it, and burned it on the altar, besides the burnt sacrifice of the morning.

Aaron then took the grain offering mixed with oil from verse 4 above, took a handful, and burned it on the altar.  This was to be offered "besides the burnt sacrifice of the morning", which was daily offered first (Exodus 29:42).

(18) He also killed the bull and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the people; and Aaron's sons presented to him the blood, which he sprinkled all around on the altar,

Aaron also killed the bull and the ram which were for the people's peace offerings (verse 4 above), and his sons presented to him the blood from those animals that was probably collected in vessels while they were being killed.  Aaron sprinkled the blood all around on the altar.

(19) And the fat of the bull and the ram, the rump, what covers the inwards, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver; (20) And they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burned the fat on the altar; (21) And the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering before the LORD, as Moses commanded.

The fat of the bull and the ram, including the kidneys, the caul above the liver, and the fat tail of the ram, they put upon the breasts of the animals.  Aaron burned the fat on the altar after having waved it upon the breasts.  The breasts and the right shoulders of the bull and the ram Aaron waved for a wave offering before the Lord, just as Moses had instructed him to do.

(22) And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, the burnt offering, and peace offerings.

After offering the sacrifices for he himself and for the people, Aaron turned toward the people and lifted up his hand or hands toward them and blessed them.  He then came down from the altar.

(23) And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out and blessed the people; and the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people.

Then Moses and Aaron both went into the tabernacle and they came out and both blessed the people; Aaron having already blessed them once, now blessed them along with Moses.  The glory of the Lord, some visible sign of His glory, appeared to all the people, just as Moses had told them would happen in verse 6 above.

(24) And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar; when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.

A fire came out from before the Lord, probably from that visible sign of His glory, and immediately consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar.  When all the people saw it, they shouted in joy and probably awe, and fell on their faces in reverence and humility.   This scripture is the one that caused controversy and seemed to contradict verse 10 (and again in verses 13-20), where it was said that Aaron burned "the fat, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering" on the altar, and now scripture said that fire came from the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar.  There was even conjecture that Moses and Aaron remained in the tabernacle until the evening sacrifice, of which there is no mention.  I see no problem with the way it was written.  As activity continued after verse 10, and nothing was said to the effect of the offering being totally consumed before anything else happened, everything seems perfectly in order.  Aaron placed the things on the altar and began burning them, and moved on.  When the Lord's fire came down, it totally consumed the offerings on the altar, a manifest token of God's acceptance of their service and sacrifice.  Regardless of what was on the altar and what time it occurred, it was totally apparent to the people that God's fire consumed their offerings, indicating His pleasure and acceptance of them.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, put it this way, "It signified the turning away of God's wrath from them. God's wrath is a consuming fire; this fire might justly have fastened upon the people, and consumed them for their sins; but its fastening upon the sacrifice, and consuming that, signified God's acceptance of that as an atonement for the sinner."

I believe I touched on the fact before that Jewish tradition held that the sacred fire of the altar originated in this divine act, and that it was afterward preserved on the altar of the tabernacle (Lev. 6:13):  "The fire shall ever be burning on the altar; it shall never go out."  However, scripture shows that fire was started in a natural way, unless you believe what some commentators try to make a case for, that the sacrifices from verses 10 through 20 were only placed in order on the altar, and not actually burned.  I see no reason not to take scripture at its face value.  Aaron was doing exactly what had been commanded he do, and the fire from the Lord totally consumed whatever was on the altar at the time, and from that time on, that fire from heaven was never allowed to go out.  John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, adds that it (the fire) "therefore was carried in a peculiar vessel in their journeys in the wilderness".  I suppose I will learn more about that when that occurs in scripture.

Matthew Henry went as far to say that the fire took possession of the altar went it came out from the Lord and consumed what was on the altar.  This fire represented the Spirit of God which would dwell with the people and be carefully preserved and not allowed to go out.  It was a picture of the coming Spirit of fire that descended on the apostles in Acts 2:3, and that which was promised by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11, when he said the One coming after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.  Matthew Henry wrote of the descent of holy fire into our souls "to kindle in them pious and devout affections towards God".  Additionally, as a fire, it "burns up the flesh and the lusts of it".